Hacktivists say they have copied a vast slice of Spotify’s catalog, claiming to have archived tens of millions of tracks and the data that describes them. The group behind the operation, Anna’s Archive, frames the scrape as a cultural preservation project, while critics see it as one of the most brazen acts of music piracy in the streaming era. At stake is not just Spotify’s security, but the future of how music is stored, paid for, and potentially fed into artificial intelligence systems.
What Anna’s Archive says it did
The group that calls itself Anna’s Archive describes the operation as a way to safeguard music from corporate control, presenting itself as a piracy and digital preservation project rather than a conventional hacking crew. In its own messaging, the group claims to have scraped and archived around 86 m songs, a figure it portrays as a meaningful share of the world’s recorded music. The same statement emphasizes that Anna and Archive see themselves as custodians of culture, not thieves, even as they acknowledge that their methods violate platform rules and likely copyright law.
Reporting from multiple outlets aligns on the scale of the claim, describing a pirate library that says it has copied 86 million of the most popular songs on Spotify and amassed roughly 300 terabytes of audio. One account notes that the group, identified as Anna’s Archive, says it scraped metadata for about 256 m tracks and audio files for 86 million of them, a distinction that underlines how much of Spotify’s value lies in its data as well as its sound. In that telling, Anna and Archive are not just hoarding songs, they are copying the scaffolding that makes modern streaming services searchable and programmable.
How the scrape reportedly worked
From what has been disclosed so far, the operation appears to have relied on Spotify’s own infrastructure rather than a dramatic breach of internal servers. The activists are currently thought to have used Spotify’s public web API to scrape the metadata, automating requests that, in normal use, power playlists, recommendations, and artist pages. For the audio itself, the group is said to have exploited how Spotify delivers streams to authenticated users, turning what should be ephemeral listening sessions into permanent downloads at massive scale.
Spotify has confirmed that it identified and disabled user accounts that engaged in what it calls unlawful scraping, suggesting that the attackers posed as regular listeners rather than breaking in through a traditional security hole. One detailed account describes how hackers scraped Spotify’s entire library, obtaining 300 terabytes’ worth of music files and prompting the company to say it had “disabled the nefarious user accounts” involved in the activity, a response captured in a statement about Spotify. That framing matters, because it positions the incident less as a catastrophic internal breach and more as an abuse of the same interfaces that power countless legitimate apps and integrations.
Spotify’s response and the “anti‑copyright extremist” label
Spotify has tried to strike a balance between acknowledging the seriousness of the scrape and reassuring artists, labels, and listeners that its core systems remain intact. The company has said it shut down the unlawful accounts involved and is working to prevent similar scraping in the future, while emphasizing that user passwords and payment data were not the target. In one account, Spotify describes the perpetrators as “anti‑copyright extremists,” a phrase that signals how the company wants the public to view the group that calls itself Anna’s Archive, and that language appears in coverage of how Spotify says its library was scraped.
At the same time, Spotify has confirmed that the incident did occur and that a huge volume of music was copied, even if it disputes the activists’ framing of their motives. One report notes that Spotify confirmed the scrape and said it had disabled the accounts involved, while also acknowledging that it cannot “un‑leak” the music now that it has been copied and distributed, a reality described in coverage of how Spotify was attacked. That admission underscores the asymmetry of digital leaks: once a dataset of this size escapes, even a swift corporate response cannot pull it back.
The numbers: 86M songs, 256M rows, 300TB of culture
What makes this incident stand out is not just that it happened, but the sheer scale of what Anna’s Archive claims to have taken. Several accounts converge on the figure of 86 million audio files, with one describing a “Massive Spotify Content Scraping” in which a hacktivist group releases over 86 M audio files as part of a shadow library. Another report says the scrape includes 256 million rows of track metadata and 86 million audio files, to be distributed through the group’s infrastructure, and explicitly cites the metrics “256 m” and “86 m” as the numbers mentioned by Anna’s Archive.
Those figures are not just impressive in a technical sense, they represent a significant fraction of the commercially available recorded music that Spotify hosts. One account describes a pirate library that rips 86 million of the most popular songs on Spotify, again using the metric “86 m” to convey the scope of the copying. Another report, focused on the activist angle, notes that the group says it gathered metadata for about 256 million tracks and audio files for 86 million of them, reinforcing the idea that this was a systematic attempt to mirror Spotify’s catalog rather than a random leak, and that description appears in coverage of how WASHINGTON reported on the scrape.
Hacktivists, pirates, or preservationists?
The language used to describe Anna’s Archive varies sharply depending on who is doing the talking, and that framing shapes how the public understands the scrape. Some reports refer to the group as Hacktivists who scraped 86M Spotify tracks and claim their aim is to preserve culture, presenting them as politically motivated actors rather than simple profiteers, a characterization that appears in coverage of how Hacktivists targeted Spotify. Others lean into the pirate imagery, describing how pirates descend on Spotify’s entire library and portraying Anna, sometimes shortened to Ann, as part of a long lineage of shadow libraries that treat copyright as an obstacle to be routed around, a narrative captured in a piece about how Ann and her peers operate.
From the perspective of artists and labels, however, the distinction between hacktivist and pirate may feel academic. One detailed report quotes a campaigner saying “This stolen music is almost certain to end up training AI models,” framing the scrape as both a direct economic threat and a potential accelerant for unlicensed artificial intelligence, and that warning appears in coverage of how an activist group says it scraped 86m music files from Spotify, illustrated with a photograph by Christian Hartmann credited as Photograph Christian Hartmann. In that light, the group’s rhetoric about preserving culture collides with the reality that the creators of that culture were neither asked nor paid.
Legal and ethical fallout for Spotify and Anna’s Archive
Legally, the scrape sits at the intersection of platform terms of service, anti‑hacking statutes, and copyright law, and it is likely to test how courts view large‑scale automated access to public APIs. Spotify has already labeled the activity as unlawful scraping and has signaled that it sees the group as engaging in clear violations of its rules, a stance echoed in coverage that describes how the company identified and disabled the accounts that engaged in the scraping. For Anna’s Archive, the legal risk is compounded by the fact that it is not just collecting data for research, but distributing full audio files in a way that looks indistinguishable from classic piracy, a point made in reports that describe a hacktivist shadow library releasing over 86 million audio files as part of a Massive Spotify Content Scraping.
Ethically, the case forces a confrontation between two competing visions of cultural stewardship. On one side are artists, labels, and platforms that argue that controlled access and licensing are the only sustainable way to fund music creation, and that unauthorized copying at this scale undermines the entire streaming economy. On the other side are activists who see corporate platforms as fragile, censorable gatekeepers and who argue that copying is the only way to ensure that music survives political shifts, corporate failures, or changing business models, a view reflected in coverage of how a piracy and digital preservation group called Anna’s Archive claims to have scraped and archived around 86 million songs and presents itself as a guardian of culture, as described in the Instagram post about Anna and Archive.
Why AI looms over the entire incident
Even for listeners who never visit a piracy site, the Spotify scrape matters because of what could happen to the copied data once it circulates beyond the group’s control. One campaigner quoted in coverage of the incident warns that “This stolen music is almost certain to end up training AI models,” a concern that reflects how valuable large, labeled audio datasets have become for companies building generative systems. With 86 million tracks and 256 million rows of metadata, the archive resembles a ready‑made training corpus for models that could learn not just how music sounds, but how it is categorized, sequenced, and marketed, a fear that appears in the reporting on the activist group that says it has scraped 86m music files from Spotify, again illustrated with a photograph by Christian Hartmann credited as Dec and Dec.
For AI developers, the temptation to use such a dataset, even informally, will be strong, especially for smaller players that lack the resources to license catalogs from major labels. That possibility raises hard questions about how copyright law applies to training data, how artists should be compensated if their work is used to teach machines, and whether platforms like Spotify have a duty to prevent their catalogs from becoming raw material for unlicensed AI. The scrape therefore sits at the center of a broader debate about whether the future of music will be shaped by negotiated licenses and collective bargaining, or by whoever can quietly assemble the largest, most detailed dataset, a tension that is implicit in reports that describe how a group of online activists claim to have copied a large portion of Spotify’s music library and plan to distribute it, as detailed in the account from Spotify’s scrape.
What this means for streaming’s future
For Spotify and its rivals, the Anna’s Archive incident is a warning that the same openness that made streaming platforms central to global music culture can also be a liability. Public APIs, web players, and flexible account systems have enabled everything from smart speakers to DJ apps, but they also create surfaces that determined actors can exploit at scale, as seen in the reports that the activists used Spotify’s public web API to scrape metadata and then turned user accounts into industrial‑grade downloaders. The company’s response, which includes disabling accounts and tightening controls, will likely ripple out to developers and users who rely on those interfaces, potentially making the streaming ecosystem more closed and less interoperable, a shift hinted at in coverage of how Spotify is reassessing access.
For artists, the scrape is another reminder that their work can be copied, recombined, and repurposed far beyond the platforms where they upload it, often without consent or compensation. Some may see Anna’s Archive as a backstop against corporate collapse or censorship, while others will view it as a direct attack on their livelihoods, especially if the copied catalog fuels AI systems that compete with human musicians. As streaming services, labels, and lawmakers respond, the choices they make about security, licensing, and enforcement will help determine whether the next decade of music is defined by tightly controlled platforms, sprawling shadow libraries, or some uneasy mix of both, a crossroads captured in the description of how pirates descended on Spotify’s entire library and turned it into a shadow archive, as reported in the story about Spotify’s scraped catalog.
More from MorningOverview